09/15/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 15, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued) Gaffron stated that the stakes appear to be on the easement line and property disputes cannot be determined by the City. Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03- 2943, Robert and Janet Labalt,3202 North Shore Drive, denying the proposal due to the increases in structural coverage beyond what is allowed by Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, 2930 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES, 9:00—9:26 P.M. Jonathon Menth, the Applicant,was present. Waataja reported that the applicant requests the following variance to reconstruct a 26 x 10' deck on a property that is currently over the allowable hardcover amounts. 1. Hardcover variance to allow 48%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally required and 48.5% currently exists. The applicant submitted plans to rebuild an existing deck; however,prior to submitting plans for a variance the existing deck was removed. Waataja stated that there was no building permit for the deck and therefore staff is unable to confirm the decks size. The survey submitted shows a proposed 26 x 10 foot deck. The latest assessor's records show a 26 x 6 foot deck. The applicant has stated that he will be replacing the deck that was torn down and the new deck will be the exact size and shape as the old deck with the exception of a staircase that will be moved within the footprint of the deck to reduce hardcover. Because the deck is being replaced over existing patio staff will assume the applicant is merely replacing the 26 x 10 foot deck, not anything larger. The applicants are required to apply for a hardcover variance because the existing property is over on hardcover. A patio currently exists under where the deck is proposed and therefore hardcover amounts will not change on the property. The deck that was there prior to demolition included a staircase that extended towards the side property line. The new plans for the deck replacement show the stairs moved within the footprint of the deck. Because the previous staircase was not over the patio, hardcover is being reduced by 40 square feet with the relocation of this staircase. Waataja indicated that staff recommends: 1. Approval based on the condition that the deck is replaced in the exact location of the previous deck(26' x 10'), with the exception that the staircase be moved within the footprint of the deck and not extend towards the southwestern property boundary and the patio existing beyond the footprint of the deck be removed. PAGE 19 of 25